Modern History Sourcebook:
Nikita Krushchev:
Address to the UN General Assembly, Sept. 23 1960
[]Our century is the century of the struggle for freedom, the century in which nations
are liberating themselves from foreign domination. The peoples desire a worthwhile life
and are fighting to secure it.Victory has already been won in many countries and lands. But we cannot rest on our
laurels, for we know that tens of millions of human beings are still languishing in
colonial slavery and are suffering grave hardships. . . .Every intelligent individual gives some thought to what scientific progress, what this
great twentieth century, is bringing mankind. Some rightly say that the world has been
given new horizons, unlimited opportunities for the creation of abundant material wealth
and for the ample satisfaction of human needs. With no less justification, others point to
the great danger of scientific and technical achievements being used, not for these
beneficial purposes, but primarily for the production of appalling means of destruction.
These means of destruction are not being used at the present time. But, in the last
analysis, they are produced to be used.This argument between optimists and pessimists reflects the facts of our times. The
most important of these facts is the conflict between two trends or lines of policy in
international relations. I am not, of course, referring here to differences in social
systems, since this is a domestic issue, which can and must be settled only by nations and
States themselves. . . .These two lines of policy in international relations have long been in opposition.
Although parallel lines never meet in elementary geometry they may come into collision in
international affairs. That would be a fearful moment indeed. Only ten or fifteen years
ago, few could predict the outcome of the struggle between these two lines of
international policy. In the year 1960, however, only the blind can fail to see how the
majority of peoples are becoming more and more positively and plainly convinced of the
need to maintain peace.The peoples of all countries-workers, peasants, intellectuals and the bourgeoisie,
excluding a small handful of militarists and monopolists - want not war but peace, and
peace alone. And if, therefore, the peoples actively, fight to tie the hands of the
militarist and monopolist circles, peace can be ensured. . . .No one can dispute the fact that the Soviet Union has been unsparing in its efforts to
ensure the continuation of this welcome trend in the development of international
relations. But the sinister forces which profit from the maintenance of international
tension are clinging tenaciously to their positions. Though only a handful of individuals
is involved, they are quite powerful and exert a strong influence on the policy of their
respective States. A major effort is therefore required to break their resistance. As soon
as the policy of casing international tension begins to yield tangible results, they
immediately- resort to extreme measures in order to ensure that the people should feel no
relief; they strain every nerve to plunge the world back again and again into an
atmosphere of gloom and to exacerbate international tension.We saw a dangerous manifestation of the work of these forces last spring when the
aircraft of one of the largest States Members of the United Nations, the United States of
America, treacherously invaded the air space of the Soviet Union and that of other States.
Whai is more, the United States has elevated such violations of international law into a
principle of deliberate State policy,.The aggressive intrusion into our country by a United States aircraft and the whole
course of the United States Government's subsequent behaviour showed the peoples that they
were dealing with a calculated policy on the part of the United States Government, which
was trying to substitute brigandage for international law and treachery for honest
negotiations between sovereign and equal States. . . .The flights by the United States spy aircraft are also instructive in another respect.
They have shown up the danger to peace presented by the network of United States bases in
which dozens of States in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America are enmeshed.Like a deep-seated form of acute infection in a living organism, these bases disrupt
the normal political and economic life of the States upon which they have been foisted.
They hinder the establishment of normal relations between those States and their
neighbours. How, indeed, can there be any question of normal relations if the people of
these neighbouring countries cannot sleep peacefully, if they have to live with the threat
of being subjected to an annihilating blow whenever the United States militarists take it
into their heads to embark on fresh acts of provocation? . . .United States relations with Cuba are illuminating. As you know, before the victory of
the popular revolution, all branches of the Cuban. economy were wholly dominated by,
United States monopolies which earned vast profits from exploiting the working people of
Cuba and the wealth of their fertile soil.Some people in the United States occasionally like to boast that the standard of living
in their country is higher than that in other countries. There is no gainsaying the fact
that the standard of living in the United States is now higher than in Cuba, but why is
that so? Is it because the Cuban people are less industrious or because the Cuban soil is
less fertile? No, this of course is not the reason. The Cuban people are well known for
their industry and for their attachment to their country and to their soil. The
explanation is entirely different. For many years the fruits of the Cuban people's toil
were enjoyed not by the Cuban people but by United States monopolies. Is it therefore
surprising that in 1958, for example, the per caput income in Cuba was 6.5 times lower
than in the United States? This telling fact speaks for itself. . . .We are all witnesses to the fact that many peoples are being continually subjected to
hostile acts and crude pressure by a certain group of States which seek to set at naught
the legitimate interests and rights of other countries. Th is is why the international
situation is fraught with acute conflicts, the danger of which is intensified by the
mounting arms race.It is quite evident that international relations cannot continue on such a basis, as
that would mean a headlong descent to the abyss. It is the sacred duty, of the United
Nations to uphold the sovereign rights of States, and to press for the re-establishment of
international relations on a sound legal basis and for the ending of the arms race.Unfortunately, the policy of violating the inalienable rights of peoples is still in
evidence in the United Nations itself.Take, for instance, the question of the representation in the United Nations of the
Chinese people. To impede the reinstatement of the People's Republic of China in its
legitimate rights in the United Nations, simply because the socialist regime of that State
is not to the taste of the leading circles of certain Western countries, and in particular
of the United States, is to disregard the facts; it betokens the absence of any desire for
a relaxation of international tension; it means that the interests of strengthening world
peace and of developing international cooperation are being sacrificed to the narrow
political calculations of a small group of States. This situation is inimical to peace and
is degrading to the United Nations. . . .Is the solution of major international problems really conceivable today without the
participation of the People's Republic of China? Is it possible to solve these problems
without the participation of India, Indonesia, Burma, Ceylon, the United Arab Republic,
Iraq, Ghana, Guinea and the other States? If anyone has this idea, let him try to
disregard the opinion and the votes of the representatives of the Asian, African and Latin
American States here in the United Nations. It is true that the appearance of the new
Asian and African States in the United Nations is giving rise to apprehension in certain
Western countries. More than that, people are beginning to discuss ways of limiting the
further influx of newly-emerging States into the United Nations.As regards the Soviet Union, I can say frankly that we are glad to see a great number
of new States making their appearance in the United Nations. We have always opposed and we
shall continue to oppose any curtailment of the rights of peoples who have won their
national independence. We share with these States the desire to preserve and strengthen
peace, to create on our planet conditions for the peaceful coexistence and co-operation of
countries regardless of their political and social structure, in accordance with the
peaceful principles proclaimed at the Conference of African and Asia States at Bandung.
The facts show that the liberation of nations and peoples under colonial domination leads
to an improvement in international relations, an increase in international co-operation
and the reinforcement of world peace. . . .It would be difficult to exaggerate the vast significance which the abolition of the
colonial system would have for the entire world. Everyone knows that the economics of the
colonies and the Trust Territories are at present subordinated to the mercenary interests
of foreign monopolies, and the industrialization of these countries is being deliberately
impeded. Imagine that the situation has changed and that these countries and territories,
having become independent, are in a position to make ample use of their rich natural
resources and to proceed with their industrialization, and that a better life has begun
for their peoples. This would lead to a tremendous growth in the capacity of the world
market, which would no doubt have a beneficial effect, not only on the economic
development of the countries of the East but also on the economies of the industrially
developped countries of the West....A year has elapsed since the General Assembly adopted the resolution on general and
complete disarmament. Having regard to the present pace of life, that is a comparatively
long period of time and we need have no doubt that those engaged in the production of
weapons and in the perfection and invention of new lethal means have not let it go to
waste.But in the sphere of disarmament not the slightest progress has been made in the past
vear. What are the reasons for this state of affairs to which we are forced to refer with
great regret and serious concern? Who is preventing the implementation of the General
Assembly resolution on general and complete disarmament, perhaps the most important and
outstanding decision in the history of the United Nations? Who is making it impossible to
break the deadlock on the problem of disarmament?The facts show that the absence of any progress towards the solution of the disarmament
problem is the consequence of the position taken bv the United States and by certain other
States linked with it through NATO.Throughout the work of the Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament, the Western Powers
refused to start working out a treaty on general and complete disarmament and in everv
xvav avoided discussion of the substance of the Soviet programme of general and complete
disarmament [A /4219] which the General Assembly had referred to the Committee for
detailed consideration. For their part, they made proposals which provided for neither
general nor complete disarmament, nor any disarmament at all, but only for measures of
control over armaments, i.e. control without disarmament. How ever, one cannot but see
that the establishment of control without disarmament would be tantamount to setting up an
international espionage system which, far from contributing to the consolidation of peace,
could, on the contrarv, make it easier for a potential aggressor to realize his plans
which pose a hireat to the peoples. . . .The Soviet Government, together with the Governments of a number of other States, was
compelled to suspend its participation in the work of the Tcn-Nation Committee which the
Western Powers bad turned into a screen for concealing the arms race. It was not easy for
the Soviet Government to take this decision, because it was precisely our country that had
first raised the issue of general and complete disarmament, and had been doing its utmost
to achieve in the Committee a constructive solution to the problem, in strict conformity
with the General Assembly resolution. In the circumstances, however, staying on in the
Committee would only have meant helping the opponents of disarmament. It was impossible to
tolerate attempts to make the great cause of disarmament an object of speculation for
purposes inimical to the interests of universal peace.That is why the Soviet Government has placed the question of disarmament before the
United Nations General Assembly, a considerable majority of whose members have no interest
whatever in the arms race and sincerely wish to see it brought to an end. . . .The new Soviet proposal on the question of general and complete disarmament, which is
based on the provisions of the proposal dated 2 June 1960 [A/4374], submitted by the
Soviet Government to all the Governments of the world for consideration, has been drafted
with due regard for all the useful ideas expressed in the past year in the course of the
discussions on this question in political and public circles in various countries. This
proposal goes a long way towards meeting the position of the Western Powers and this we
hope will make for early agreement on disarmament.We now provide, in particular, that all means of delivering nuclear weapons to their
targets should be eliminated in the very first stage of general and complete disarmament;
we have worked out detailed measures for effective international control at all stages;
and we have taken into account the wish of certain Western Powers that, from the outset,
there should be provision for reduction in the strength of armed forces and in
conventional armaments. We have also introduced quite a number of other amendments to and
modifications of our programme. In our view all these amendments render the programme of
general and complete disarmament more concrete and even more realistic and practicable. .
. .The Soviet Government is deeply convinced that only a radical solution of the problem
of disarmament, providing for the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons together with
the cessation of their manufacture and testing and the destruction of all accumulated
stockpiles of these weapons, can accomplish the task of delivering mankind from the threat
of nuclear war which liangs over it. This is precisely the aim which the Soviet Union is
pursuing in consistently and resolutely advocating general and complete disarmament.All this, in our view, leads to one important conclusion. In order finally to break the
deadlock on the disarmament problem, the General Assembly should call to order those who
are hindering its solution and are trying to replace business-like negotiations on
disarmament by empty beating about the bush. . . .The peoples of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Government are striving unremittingly to
have the principles of peaceful coexistence firmly established in relations between
States, and to ensure that these principles become the fundamental law of life for the
whole of modern society. There is no communist-devised "trick" behind these
principles, but simple truths dictated by life itself, such as that relations between all
States should develop peacefully, without the use of force, without war and without
interference in each other's internal affairs.I am revealing no secret when I say that we have no liking for capitalism. But we do
not want to impose our system on other peoples by force. Let those, then, who determine
the policy of States with a different social system from ours, renounce their fruitless
and dangerous attempts to dictate their will. It is time tbey also recognized that the
choice of a particular way of life is the domestic concern of every people. Let us build
up our relations having regard to actual realities. That is true peaceful coexistence. . .
.The policy of peaceful coexistence assumes a readiness to solve all outstanding issues
without resort to force, bv means of negotiations and reasonable compromises. We all know
that during the cold war years such questions for the most part did not find a solution,
and that led to the creation of dangerous foci of tension in Europe, Asia and other parts
of the world.The Soviet Union considers that, in order to strengthen peace in the Far East and
throughout the world, it is most essential to settle the Korean question.Only madmen could think of settling the Korean question by armed force. The only
correct proposal, namely to leave the solution of the question of the peaceful
reunification of Korea to the Koreans themselves with no interference from outside, is
finding ever wider acceptance. An essential condition for this is the immediate and
complete withdrawal of all United States troops from South Korea, for their presence
poisons the atmosphere not only in Korea but throughout the Far East and has made possible
such shameful facts as the rigging of elections in South Korea. The proposal of the
Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to establish a confederation of
North and South Korea is Just as reasonable as the proposal of the Government of the
German Democratic Republic to set up a confederation of the two German States. It is the
only way to lay a sound foundation for the reunification of these States. . . .We are now firmly convinced that the time has come to take steps to create conditions
for an improved functioning both of the United Nations as a whole and of the
Organization's executive, working organ. I repeat, the matter relates primarily to the
Secrctary-General and his staff. We must particularly bear in mind the necessity for
certain changes and improvements, with a view to the immediate future. . . .We consider it reasonable and just for the executive organ of the United Nations to
consist not of a single person-tlie Secretary-General-but of three persons invested with
the highest trust of the United Nations, persons representing the States belonging to the
three basic groups I have mentioned. The point at issue is not the title of the organ but
that this executive organ should represent the States belonging to the military block of
the Western Powers, the socialist States and the neutralist States. This composition of
the United Nations executive organ would create conditions for a more correct
implementation of the decisions taken. . . .The Soviet Government hopes that the proposals it has raised for questions to be
considered at the present session of the General Assembly will meet with support and
understandiing, since they are prompted by a sincere desire to secure a better life and
tranquillity on our planet. . . .The Soviet Government is ready to jo its utmost in order that colonial servitude may be
destroyed here and now, that here and now the problems of disarmament may find their
concrete and effective solution.The Soviet Government is ready to do its utmost in order that the testing of nuclear
weapons may be prohibited here and now, that this means of mass destruction mav be
prohibited and destroved.It could be said that these are complicated problems and that they cannot be solved at
one stroke. But these are problems posed by life itself and thev must be solved before it
is too late. Their solution cannot be evaded.In concluding my statement I wish to emphasize once again that the Soviet Government,
guided by the interests of the Soviet people, by the interests of the citizens of a free
socialist State, once again proposes to all: let us talk, let us argue, but let us settle
the questions of general and complete disarmament and let us bury colonialism that is
accursed of all mankind.
Source:from United Nations, General Assembly, Official Records, Fifteenth Session,
pp. 68-84.
This text is part of the Internet
Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and
copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright.
Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational
purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No
permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.
© Paul Halsall, November 1998
halsall@fordham.edu
|
